Talk:Huljich family

Content dispute (again)

There is much in this article that suggests a point of view, mainly through the inclusion of material which is quite unrelated to the subject (Huljich brothers).

Could I suggest that the information about "Prosecution of Peter Huljich" is almost entirely inappropriate for this page, given that Peter Huljich is not actually one of the Huljich brothers that the page is purportedly about.

There are also extensive quotes from John Banks (a business partner of the Huljich brothers) but are not directly relevant to the article itself about the Huljichs.

Perhaps it would be better if the Peter Huljich information was completely removed, the Huljich Wealth Management information was considerably condensed and includes the fact that there is a forthcoming legal proceeding.

I am happy to have a go at re-writing this Astronomer44 (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a go at re-writing this, but am disappointed to see that the text has been reversed almost staight away, without any reference here on the talk page. Can someone please explain to me why quotes of John Banks and screeds of information about a son of one of the brothers is needed on this page? Astronomer44 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removals of well-sourced content are almost always reverted. Personally I don't see any reasons why the content you removed/rewrote had to be removed – if you want to remove well-sourced content without being reverted, please use the edit summary box to explain, in detail, why you don't think the content should be there. Note that if you are closely related to the article's subject, this is a conflict of interest, and I'm urging you to stay away from this article if that's the case. HeyMid (contribs) 21:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I too do not understand the reasoning behind the content blanking and removal, it is well referenced and Wikipedia is not censoredTeapotgeorge^Talk 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Here are some suggestions.

(1) there is no need for any quote from John Banks. He is not a Huljich brother. He is a director of the company. If quotes are necessary, then they belong on a specific page about the company, not about the three brothers. (2) much of the information is far too specific to be anything other than mischevious or pointless in its inclusion. For example, that a court appearance may occur on a specific date in the future. That hardly helps in Wikipedia's objectives. Another example, the nature of the fine or penalties involved. (3) Peter Huljich is not actually one of the Huljich brothers that the page is about. He is the son of one of the brothers.

The page appears to be overweighted on a specific action of one of the Huljich sons rather than what the page should be about - the Huljich brothers. It is suspicious that there is so little information about the Huljich brothers compared to the more recent screeds of text involving the court investigations of one of their sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronomer44 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

Since one party is claiming the information is libellious and poorly sourced, leave it out for now while I investigate the sources. elektrikSHOOS 21:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this article from editing due to edit warring. Given that there are allegations that the material about some living people is poorly sourced and libellous, it is best that the material is out of the article until this dispute is settled, which it hopefully can be, soon. I ask User:Independentobservernz to explain what, specifically, is problematic with the material s/he has deleted. This needs to be done soon, however. The content was sourced to reliable sources, and unless concrete problems are identified, the material will be restored. --Slp1 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been no response here to this request to explain what the problems are. I will prompt Independentobservernz to express his/her concerns again, but if there is still no response in the next 24 hours I will unprotect the article, as it does appear there are reliable sources for this. --Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no response I will be lifting the protection on this article.--Slp1 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Troubles

Here and here seems to support the section that the user was removing. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This recent content...In 2010, Peter Huljich admitted responsibility for "lapses" in investment practice where he topped up the company's KiwiSaver fund from Huljich family funds to make up for losses incurred in order to retain the fund's favourable market performance figures and appear more profitable than competitors. Peter Huljich's management role was taken over by the company's chairman, Don Brash and Hulich was replaced on the Board of the company by Chris Huljich, his father. Nick Churchouse, "Huljich steps down over KiwiSaver irregularities", The Dominion Post, 05 March 2010, Edition 2, Page 1.

Also support of the content from the new Zealand herald. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Simerlocy Press

Do we know about the reliability of Simerlocy Press? Not only do they not have a Wikipedia article, but they dont appear to have a corporate website. Active Banana (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambig or delink John Banks

Is the John Banks quoted in the article John Banks (New Zealand)? or someone else? Active Banana (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Self promotional ADVERT issues

{{Request edit}} Its hardly appropriate to include "They are very careful, cautious and prudent investors ... and they have kept mostly off the radar screen. I have been in business with the family in various ways and they are one of the great Croatian families in this country." statement a business partner on a new venture - the quote has very clear self promotional conflict of interest issues. This should be removed.Active Banana (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A number of suggested changes

In my view, the Huljich brothers article needs some significant work! The page, in the first instance, should probably be renamed "Huljich family" to reflect that the Huljich family is now more than just the three brothers (as shown later in the article where it mentions children of one of the brothers). Also, the evidence of sock-puppetry for this page suggests that an interested party has been modifying the page for their own benefit. There is probably good cause to re-writing a significant part of the article to reflect the change in business interests stemming from the family discord. However, I am loathe to make any edits due to the previous wiki-wars and sock-puppetry. Can I suggest the following changes for discussion before I make any edits?

• Rename the article as "Huljich family"
• Remove a lot of the finely grained detail for the family dispute section (suggesting that someone personally connected to the Huljich brothers was using Wikipedia for their side of the story)
• Further build out the tech start ups section, which is more relevant to the page
• Re-write the Kiwisaver portion to be more succinct and in the past tense
• Re-name and re-write the business section to show it was the initial business of the Huljich family
• Re-write the introduction to make it more about the wider family, which has substantial business activities beyond that of the three brothers in the article.

Subject to other people being happy with this, I'll make some edits and hopefully provide a better article than the one at present.PragmaticOutcome (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have made a major re-write of the article to make it more succinct, more up-to-date and less like it was written by someone pushing their own agenda. It would be greatly appreciated if people with suggested changes raise the issue here first! PragmaticOutcome (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done. a great improvement.Rick570 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pleased you think so. I hope your sock puppets (ref Rick570 investigations by Wikipedia Editors) that edited the previous versions of this article also agree with you. PragmaticOutcome (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You should perhaps reference better some of the personal detail entries relating to marital status (etc) of the brothers (i.e. particularly in the first section of the article).Rick570 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Rick570, I note you are seeking to request citations to the Huljich family article. I appreciate your desire to improve the article with more citations, but I am deeply uncomfortable given your previous sock puppetry on this and other pages that saw your sock puppet blocked for good and you banned for a week (and this only six months ago). On that basis, I really don't think its appropriate for you to make any kind of changes. Should you make changes of any substance, I will ask a more senior Wikipedia editor to examine your edits. PragmaticOutcome (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)